Experimenting on Our Kids

This paper is authored by eight doctors from some of the most venerable institutions across the United States, including Harvard, UCLA and UCSF. These doctors are considered to be the "thought leaders" of the affirmative model. It can reasonably be assumed that this paper is an authoritative description of their theory.

It is a simplistic model, so badly written, citing such meaningless studies, that one wonders how it could have possibly become the accepted Standard of Care. That is, until you realize where it is coming from. It did not evolve from sound scientific theory, carefully tested following the rules of the scientific method.

It is political ideology dressed up as science. Pure and simple.

Our Issues with this model

1. The proposed treatment conflicts with the basic premises

" gender may be fluid, and is not binary, both at a particular time and if and when it changes within an individual across time"

They state clearly gender may be fluid and can change over time. Yet, they prescribe puberty blockers, hormones and surgery, all of which create permanent changes, to treat gender dysphoria.

2. The Model blames society for the child's problems

"gender variations are not disorders...if there is pathology, it more often stems from cultural reactions (e.g. transphobia, homophobia, sexism) rather than from within the child."

In other words, if the child has problems, then it's society's fault and society has to change. This discourages the child from examining their own emotional issues and taking responsibility for their problems. It also ignores the myriad of other known causes for gender dysphoria.

Not surprisingly, many parents note that their child can become extremely narcissistic when they decide they are transgender.

3. The Model goes against common sense and good parenting.

"Our goals within this model are to listen to the child and decipher...what the child is communicating about both gender identity and gender expressions."

Gender-affirming specialists often paraphrase this by saying, "let your child be your guide." Given the opportunity, children would guide their parents straight to McDonalds for every meal, and they would never get up, get dressed or go to school. Yet according to this Model, when it comes to gender identity, these same children are suddenly imbued with Yoda-like powers of wisdom and self-knowledge.

4. The authors themselves admit, they have no proof that this model is helpful

"While the developmental impact of our approach has yet to be rigorously studied..."

5. The paper concludes by posing some seriously troubling, unanswered questions about the Model, yet the authors have no concerns about implementing it regardless

"can we...distinguish gender non-conforming children who are transgender from (those who are not)?"

"Is there any psychological harm done if a child transitions from one gender to another and then transitions back?"

"What are the outcomes of receiving (or not receiving) psychosocial or medical interventions...which may include irreversible treatments?"

"Are there instances in which a child's beliefs about gender identity can become confused...and how can we help to account for and counter such forces?"

These are vital questions that must be answered BEFORE initiating invasive, irreversible medical interventions. Otherwise, these children are at risk of grievous psychological and physical harm at the hands of those entrusted with their care.

Yet the authors are not bothered by these questions, as they blithely close their paper with the claim that they are guided by the oath of their professions: to "do no harm".